Genealogy Chat

Charles A tasteless remark. OC

Vice is nice but incest is best ;-)

I have just realised what date we are talking about here. The Submitter of this tree cannot possibly have seen any baptismal records for either of these two people as parish records did not begin until 1542. And therefore he cannot know who their parents were. As I said, work back from the oldest proven information on your tree and ignore this submission - it is guesswork, nothing else. OC

Alison if you are taking your info from the IGI be very careful because the records for Robert are all submitted entries which have many mistakes.... Robert Riddlesdale Loker Male Event(s): Birth: About 1537 Of, Bures Saint Mary, Suffolk, England Christening: Death: Burial: Parents: Father: John Ridsdale Loker Family Mother: Joan Messages: Record submitted after 1991 by a member of the LDS Church. No additional information is available. Ancestral File may list the same family and the submitter. Georgina.

Oh dear, Alison! You are not using the IGI submitted records, are you? That way lies insanity. You need to see the parish records for yourself. This sounds to me like someone trying to push a few disconnected facts together to make a tree. In the extremely unlikely event that this WAS incest, the pair would have taken the utmost pains to hide it, not try to marry. What is the last piece of proven evidence you have for this family? My advice is to get the parish records and work backwards from your proven tree. OC

OK, thanks OC. Maybe somebody could offer some assistance if they have the time then ? I have a Lucy Riddlesdale b. c. 1536 Bures, Suffolk, daughter of John and Joan Riddlesdale, marrying a Robert Loker b.c.1534 Bures Suffolk, son of John and Joan Loker. However, the Riddlesdales were also known as Loker, some of them using both surnames together. Now, as Lucy and her husband both had parents with the same names, John and Joan, who also used both the surnames of Loker and Riddlesdale, I''m wondering if the two sets of parents were actually the same people and that maybe Lucy who married Robert were actually brother and sister ? Both sets of parents John and Joan Riddlesdale, and John and Joan Loker, had children of the same names with roughly the same dates of births according to the LDS site, making me wonder if they were actually the same people. Both sets of parents had children Lucy b. c. 1536 and Robert b. c. 1533. I''ve probably confused you as much as I have confused myself, but all records point to these two being brother and sister as far as I can see ! Cheers, Alison

Alison Incest has ALWAYS been illegal and no priest would have ever performed such a marriage. In the 1500s, the penalty for incest was death. I would look ar your evidence again! OC

I think I may have incovered incest in my family tree ! Would it have been at all unusual for a brother and sister to have married back in the mid 1500's ? Or was that acceptable then ? all my research points to this happening. Alison